4 ms·

Fair point, but private organizations would at least have a financial incentive to give accurate numbers since that's they're business, if they earn a reputatio

Fair point, but private organizations would at least have a financial incentive to give accurate numbers since that's they're business, if they earn a reputation of unreliability then there'd be no reason to pay them, you could just trust the government numbers for free.

jeffhwang 1y ago
There's significant evidence contradicting this hypothesis. See industry analysts like Gartner, IDC, etc. who all ask tech firms to "pay to play" for better rankings in their reports. As well as the ratings agencies like Moody's, S&P's, and Fitch during the 2008 financial crisis. These ratings agencies were paid by the banks selling CDOs, MBS, and other debt derivatives that were especially tied to the US housing market. The agencies were incentivized to not downgrade those products. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis#Competitive_pressure_to_lower_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the...
- root_axis 1y ago
  This makes sense. Thanks for the info.
- tristor 1y ago
  > See industry analysts like Gartner, IDC, etc. who all ask tech firms to "pay to play" for better rankings in their reports. Do you have any evidence of this happening? I've been involved on the side of the firm in many of these analyst reports, and I've never seen this happen. What /does/ happen is that to be listed at all, e.g. to have the analyst invest time/resources to review you, you have to pay. They don't exhaustively review every company in the segment or every product in the segment, regardless of size and market position. They only review those who pay to be reviewed or are large enough in market position that they are must-reviews (almost all of which also pay). But I've never seen the rankings/outcome dictated by pay at all. Much to my chagrin sometimes, the analyst will lower your ranking due to something I may have felt was a small issue, but they considered a large issue. Analyst Relations is a major investment area for large tech companies, and given my exposure over the last nearly decade, I've never seen any form of quid pro quo / money changing hands.
elictronic 1y ago
You pay for the business that provides the numbers you want. Accuracy is desired only in setting a baseline to be below. Reducing social security is the desired outcome not accuracy.
phkahler 1y ago
>> Fair point, but private organizations would at least have a financial incentive to give accurate numbers since that's they're business Private organizations will quickly start providing numbers that their customers want to see. Remember the risk ratings agencies prior to 2008? Yeah, finance guys want accurate risk assessments internally, but they always want good ratings on the stuff they're selling. Good ratings are a lubricant on transactions and since ratings are paid for by people making transactions there is more pressure in one direction.
rtkwe 1y ago
> financial incentive to give accurate numbers since that's they're business The Trump admin has already shown a complete willingness to exert financial pressure on companies and organizations to compel compliance and our hypothetical private BLS replacement is not magically insulated from those pressures and threats. > you could just trust the government numbers for free. They're clearly in the middle of an attempt to cook the numbers to make the President look good.

jeffhwang 1y ago

There's significant evidence contradicting this hypothesis. See industry analysts like Gartner, IDC, etc. who all ask tech firms to "pay to play" for better rankings in their reports. As well as the ratings agencies like Moody's, S&P's, and Fitch during the 2008 financial crisis. These ratings agencies were paid by the banks selling CDOs, MBS, and other debt derivatives that were especially tied to the US housing market. The agencies were incentivized to not downgrade those products. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis#Competitive_pressure_to_lower_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the...

root_axis 1y ago
This makes sense. Thanks for the info.
tristor 1y ago
> See industry analysts like Gartner, IDC, etc. who all ask tech firms to "pay to play" for better rankings in their reports. Do you have any evidence of this happening? I've been involved on the side of the firm in many of these analyst reports, and I've never seen this happen. What /does/ happen is that to be listed at all, e.g. to have the analyst invest time/resources to review you, you have to pay. They don't exhaustively review every company in the segment or every product in the segment, regardless of size and market position. They only review those who pay to be reviewed or are large enough in market position that they are must-reviews (almost all of which also pay). But I've never seen the rankings/outcome dictated by pay at all. Much to my chagrin sometimes, the analyst will lower your ranking due to something I may have felt was a small issue, but they considered a large issue. Analyst Relations is a major investment area for large tech companies, and given my exposure over the last nearly decade, I've never seen any form of quid pro quo / money changing hands.

elictronic 1y ago

You pay for the business that provides the numbers you want. Accuracy is desired only in setting a baseline to be below. Reducing social security is the desired outcome not accuracy.

phkahler 1y ago

>> Fair point, but private organizations would at least have a financial incentive to give accurate numbers since that's they're business Private organizations will quickly start providing numbers that their customers want to see. Remember the risk ratings agencies prior to 2008? Yeah, finance guys want accurate risk assessments internally, but they always want good ratings on the stuff they're selling. Good ratings are a lubricant on transactions and since ratings are paid for by people making transactions there is more pressure in one direction.

rtkwe 1y ago

> financial incentive to give accurate numbers since that's they're business The Trump admin has already shown a complete willingness to exert financial pressure on companies and organizations to compel compliance and our hypothetical private BLS replacement is not magically insulated from those pressures and threats. > you could just trust the government numbers for free. They're clearly in the middle of an attempt to cook the numbers to make the President look good.